Bhupinder Singh Yadav v. District Magistrate Faridabad Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 11717 of 2019 Decided on : 06.05.2019 Mr. Bhupinder Singh Yadav . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

The District Magistrate, Faridabad, Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT:

Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The prayer made in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for quashing of ex-parte order dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby, respondent No.1 on an application filed by respondent No.3 under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act'), has appointed respondent No.2 as receiver to take over the physical possession of the property i.e. Plot No. 85, Sector 34, Ashoka Enclave Extn., Main Faridabad, measuring 500 sq. yards and also notice dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-3), issued under Section 13(2) of the Act as well as notice dated 21.12.2016 (Annexure P-5), issued under Section 13(4) of the Act. A further prayer for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 25th January, 2019 (Annexure P-1) as well as impugned notice dated 21th December, 2016 (Annexure P-5), during the pendency of the writ petition, has also been made.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has approached the respondent-Bank and an amicable settlement has taken place between the parties. Accordingly, a prayer for withdrawal of the present writ petition has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE May 06, 2019 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2019.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh